• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

Big News! CUBCRAFTERS DEBUTS NEW FLAGSHIP: XCub

Good job, Cubcrafters!!!

That said, I just don't understand why anyone would choose to spend $400,000 on a cramped two-place, fabric covered airplane--be it a CC, Husky, or Maule--when the same money can buy a very nice Beaver with floats or a package deal that includes a Grand Champion 185 and nicely restored SC.

What do people think they are getting for the money? Is it just a mid-life "I Have Arrived" status symbol, like a Ferrari or cigarette boat? Is it going to blind bimbos? A chick magnet for anal-retentive, bald, beer-bellied, never-married or divorced "A" type retirees?

Does CC really expect to sell these to hunters, hunting guides, pipeline patrollers, and air taxi companies?

And are the buyers going to park these new planes on the ramp all year long or are they going to have to figure the price and availability of a suitable hangar into the new airplane's bottom line?

I don't know; maybe I'm just nuts. Maybe CC has a fat, juicy government contract that justifies the effort.

Regardless, it is a handsome airplane.
 
after owning a cub crafters 18 topcub 2150 whips I can see their product is excellent but as I get older I can't relate to spending $300,000 there are so many great airplanes could be bought for much less money I guess I just don't get it I wish the best of luck to them
 
Everything is getting more expensive. A 2012 Cessna 172 is $310,000. I'd much rather have this Xcub than a 172, 182's probably closer to the 1/2 mil mark.

I know several people who have recently spent more than $100K each upgrading their panels in older 180's and 185's.

I'm not in a situation presently to buy a plane like this, but I sure would if I could. I appreciate the folks who are able to be early adopters of this kind of new technology, without them none of us would have the planes, modifications, etc, that we have.

sj
 
I bet the cost of developing the X Cub to part 23 was a staggering figure. They will be good sellers. Look at the cost of a Husky. As far as I know, Husky's are selling.
 
Good job, Cubcrafters!!!

That said, I just don't understand why anyone would choose to spend $400,000 on a cramped two-place, fabric covered airplane--be it a CC, Husky, or Maule--when the same money can buy a very nice Beaver with floats or a package deal that includes a Grand Champion 185 and nicely restored SC.

What do people think they are getting for the money? Is it just a mid-life "I Have Arrived" status symbol, like a Ferrari or cigarette boat? Is it going to blind bimbos? A chick magnet for anal-retentive, bald, beer-bellied, never-married or divorced "A" type retirees?

Does CC really expect to sell these to hunters, hunting guides, pipeline patrollers, and air taxi companies?

And are the buyers going to park these new planes on the ramp all year long or are they going to have to figure the price and availability of a suitable hangar into the new airplane's bottom line?

I don't know; maybe I'm just nuts. Maybe CC has a fat, juicy government contract that justifies the effort.

Regardless, it is a handsome airplane.

Aviat has been in business quite some time simply building Huskies. When we were there last summer they were building a Pitts. First one in years and the tribal knowledge was gone.
 
What do people think they are getting for the money? Is it just a mid-life "I Have Arrived" status symbol, like a Ferrari or cigarette boat? Is it going to blind bimbos? A chick magnet for anal-retentive, bald, beer-bellied, never-married or divorced "A" type retirees?

Have you checked the divorce rate for retired airline pilots lately? :roll:

Glenn
 
Every time I park near the Aviat factory ramp when going to breakfast in Afton, there is a furious level of activity there. Always lots of planes, employee parking lot full, etc. CC will sell a boatload of the new birds not in spite of the high cost, but because of the high cost. Basic marketing mixed in with snob appeal/ being in a special and rare club, and there is nothing wrong with that if one can afford it. Neat plane, cost is no problem for their target audience. I could have 6 or 7 of my plane for the cost though, and I doubt I'd have more fun in anything else.
 
No one I know would spend that kind of money on a toy. It is being built for people with a lot more disposable income then all the people I know. It would be hard for anyone to justify that for a cub in Alaska. If you look at a cub just fresh out of rebuild a few years after it has been at work at a lodge they have seen some abuse. For half the price you can have a super nice Cub that will hold up to that abuse. If you put 35" Bushwheels on this spring gear airplane it is only going to go a little faster then a cub. It's target market has to be the guy that can afford the high end toys and is not going to be doing any serious off airport work. IMHO

Beautiful airplane with a lot of comforts that is why it weighs so much.
 
You don't see a lot of GMC Denali pickups out mud bogging to the hunting grounds but GMC sure sells a lot of them. Even in Alaska.
 
I have a lot more shoulder room in the front of my cub than I do when flying next to my friends in there 185 or 170. One advantage of a cub over the side by side seating is a lot better ground vis out both sides for the pilot and passenger! Add that with comfortable/warm/quiet interior and you have a very nice ride for low early morning flights. Not what you would use for a working cub but a lot of my flying is for fun. Great Job CC
DENNY
 
Last edited:
As I look at the order form, bushwheels are not available. Does anyone know if they are STC'd yet? Also, the standard gear is hydrosorbs rather than AOSS. Is AOSS going to be available?

Joe
 
Did anyone notice in the video that the fuel has right, and left, but no both!
I thought all high wings could have a both setting?
 
The spring gear was put on it first to get it through the certification. Traditional Cub type gear is forthcoming for those who desire or require. To Mauleguy's point, he's correct...even a newly rebuilt Supercub can still be had for something considerably less than the new XCub. CubCrafters will do that rebuilt Supercub for you too, they are still in that business also. Its how they got their start, I don't expect that they will ever turn away from it. It is still a very viable product in their diversified business portfolio. What some might find though is that from a business sense the XCub starts to play well on the books. It hauls more, goes faster, lands as slow, and is more comfortable to boot. It is certainly a modernized and more refined interior that many might shy away from shoving moose parts into, but then again for others it might yet become a viable tool that happens to be a hell of a lot more comfortable to work in. Your mileage may vary. Its a fun plane to fly, that goes long distances very well. A good mix, and I think in the long term a winner.

Something to consider. I can remember on this very forum sticking up for the Sport Cub back in its infancy, convincing folks that it was capable of going anywhere a SuperCub went. 400 aircraft later that airframe is still going very strong, now in the form of the Carbon Cub (the lineage is very direct and straight)... I expect no different from the new XCub.



Full disclosure: I am a sales rep for CubCrafters. I've worked for them on and off now since 2006. I have lots of Cub time, but none of it as a commercial operator.
 
Clay, definitely agree that this new offering will play well on the books. A well thought out progression for the Cub type plane. In the 30 years I have been flying, I have always felt that a plane that would cruise at/close to 150 mph, haul a 1,000 pounds, and get in and out of short strips would be the ultimate plane for me. All this with burning around 10 gph was my dream plane.

The interior upgrades are a big plus. Having owned a nice Champ, I really appreciated the 'roominess' of it over the 'cramped' feeling of the SC line of planes. The American Champion Scout comes very close to these specs if one can live with a much reduced UL. This new CubX is priced slightly higher than a new Scout but would be on the top of my list right now if I were shopping. I'm only upset because I can't afford one.
 
Question for Clay... the X Cub specs list landing and takeoff at 170' and the gross at 2300#. Are those landing and takeoff numbers established at gross? That seems unlikely.

Thanks.
 
.... It is being built for people with a lot more disposable income then all the people...... It's target market has to be the guy that can afford the high end toys and is not going to be doing any serious off airport work. IMHO
Beautiful airplane with a lot of comforts that is why it weighs so much.

Although few of us here fall into it, or want to fall into it, what a dream demographic for a manufacturer!
I think they'll sell lots of them...just not to people in my tax bracket.
 
Question for Clay... the X Cub specs list landing and takeoff at 170' and the gross at 2300#. Are those landing and takeoff numbers established at gross? That seems unlikely.

Thanks.

They are not. 170 feet is best case scenario. That's minimum fuel and single occupant, no bags. And really...there's a lot of factors and variables with that. Pilot, surface conditions...yada yada. When the dealers went out and had our first crack at it, some of the guys were measuring off distances slightly shorter...again, in best case scenario conditions.

But I think it is important to note that if you see a number published on XCub it is a real world number that has been proven and/or demonstrated. CC has made it a point to state clearly that they want to put out spec data that is actual performance that the buyer can look to see for themselves.
 
Clay's info and comments above are all accurate (thanks Clay!), and I'd be happy to answer any questions about our new bird here, but one theme that keeps coming up is cost. If you don't mind I'd like to offer some perspective on that.

Meeting all the Part 23 certification requirements probably doubled the develop cost for this project. You simply can't believe the required testing and attendant paperwork involved, but that's simply the price you pay if you want a Part 23 aircraft like it or not. Even if it weren't certified it would need to be expensive due to both development and materials/labor costs. This is a far more sophisticated aircraft than a Carbon Cub with a composite constant speed prop, 136 individual carbon fiber composite parts compared to 43 on a Carbon Cub, so there's just no way to avoid a higher price tag when new.

No manufacturer, including CubCrafters, expects a NEW aircraft to be the right fit for all pilots. I know I couldn't personally afford a new Xcub right now either, but I submit that is good for the industry for companies to continue to design and bring new products to market -- it advances the state of the art which is good for the industry. And guess what, those new aircraft now will be used aircraft later which will come down in value as they accumulate time and age. Many of us working stiffs commenting here will find that we can actually afford a used Xcub at some point. Good for everyone as I see it. No question that new birds will sell to the "two percenters" initially, economic reality in our modern world. Personally, I celebrate that though because a few years down the road and increasing number of people will be able to access a more modern, improved, and better performing Cub. The numbers are good, but frankly it's the handling qualities and the whole subjective feel of the way it flies and the way it performs that are the true magic of this plane. The thing is just a rocketship as Cubs go frankly, you actually need to think about slowing it down as you come into the pattern.

We keep talking about "wider mission profile" for the Xcub and once you flown this bird a bit you'll understand what that means. It will do almost as well as a Carbon Cub at the low end of the speed envelope, but any any sort of cruise scenario you choose it's 20-25 mph faster. My favorite power setting is 21 squared which will yield about 120 mph TAS at mid altitudes, and on 6 gph or less! In fact in real life I don't think there's any landing site I'd actually land on that I wouldn't also take an Xcub in.

Yes, I still like to go fast, and for guys like me we have an "AERO package" in development....

IMG_1126.JPG
(this is s/n 1, our original prototype)

Frankly, we consider the SuperCub.org community to be "key influencers" and we value your opinions. Yea, many of you can't afford one right now, neither can I, but we welcome your assessment so that you can inform all the pilots who might ask you what you know about it. So look me up at OSH or somewhere and let's go for a hop!
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1126.JPG
    IMG_1126.JPG
    102.5 KB · Views: 221
Last edited:
Hi Randy, excellent machine, fair play to you all!! will you be looking at Europe certification and if so when is that likely to happen? cheers Ed
 
I know I couldn't personally afford a new Xcub

First congratulations on bringing to market a new Part 23 plane. Under your leadership Cub Crafters hit a home run with the Carbon Cub. Now with the X Cub it looks like you will hit another one out of the park.

So as the leader of a $12 million aerospace company with an explosive growth record and huge potential you can not afford an XCub?

Time to ask for a raise.
 
Randy,

I am not in the correct tax bracket right now either, but I do know a couple of construction companies that might figure out that the speed of this plane will make it more reasonable for them to use than their current aircraft. There are times around here that speed equates to total miles traveled on a tank of fuel, which means safety!

I hope to see one of these and fly it. Still not been in a Carbon Cub either. If Uncle Kirby had purchased one I was going to get my adopted father to steal it for a day... (then watch the shooting:p).

If you want me to fly one in Valdez for you next spring let me know, I would be glad to take it up and competes.


On another note, as an instructor that gets asked to check folks out in their planes, (often with the - teach me how to achieve these numbers on landing), you do a disservice to the flying community publishing numbers without first qualifying them by weight.

I am fine with folks saying it will land in 170', but at least say at X weight.

Or at least add in an additional line for landing at Gross Weight.

Thank you
 
First congratulations on bringing to market a new Part 23 plane. Under your leadership Cub Crafters hit a home run with the Carbon Cub. Now with the X Cub it looks like you will hit another one out of the park.

So as the leader of a $12 million aerospace company with an explosive growth record and huge potential you can not afford an XCub?

Why buy the cow when the milk is free? Keep working and play with the best.
 
Hi Randy, excellent machine, fair play to you all!! will you be looking at Europe certification and if so when is that likely to happen? cheers Ed
Yes indeed, we are starting the validation process with EASA presently. There's no predicting the pace such a bureaucratic endeavor will take but we are hoping for Q1 2017.
 
Back
Top